Daniels
Daniels v. Associated Administrators
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*481 MEMORANDUM
Caroline Daniels appeals the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in her action alleging that defendants conspired to violate her constitutional rights and breached a duty of fair representation after she purportedly threatened to kill her supervisor at the Los Angeles Unified School District. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, see Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
Because Daniels failed to create a triable issue that the union acted arbitrarily, in bad faith, or in a discriminatory manner, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Daniels’ breach of duty of fair representation claim. See Moore v. Bechtel Power Corp., 840 F.2d 634, 636-37 (9th Cir.1988).
Furthermore, Daniels has waived any issues regarding her 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 , 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 claims by failing to develop those issues in her opening brief. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1993).
AFFIRMED.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided…